Article

2005-09-05 Africa: North

Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.

Posted by Dan Darling 2005-09-05 00:17|| || Front Page|| [2 views since 2007-05-07] Top

#1 Why did Arab governments publicly blame "Zionists" when 9/11 occurred? I always thought that this was to divert the blame from themselves. It just occurred to me that the problem we have in the Arab world may have nothing to do with the rulers and everything to do with the populace. Arab governments may actually think that bin Laden did it. But their populations may think better of bin Laden for having carried out 9/11. Arab governments may be blaming "Zionists" as a way to divert prestige from al Qaeda - Arab popular opinion is such that a 9/11 attack carried out by al Qaeda would improve al Qaeda's popularity. Why worry about diverting prestige away from al Qaeda? Because in a popularity contest between autocracies, al Qaeda might win.

I think most Arab governments just want a quiet life. They don't really care about the Palestinians all that much - except in formalistic pronouncements. Black September in Jordan and the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait taught them that Palestinians aren't the most loyal of subjects. This is why they haven't absorbed the Palestinian refugees in their midst as full citizens.

Arab governments have said that "Zionists" carried out 9/11 to drive a wedge between Arab governments and the West. They are right about the motive but have obfuscated the identity of the perpetrators. In fact, Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 to drive a wedge between Uncle Sam and existing Arab governments, hoping either that the US would pull an Iran and cause those Arab governments to fall to al Qaeda, or lash out in fury at all Muslim governments in general, causing a worldwide jihad against the US.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 00:49|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 00:49|| Front Page Top

#2 Pulling an Iran is what Jimmy Carter did to the Shah when he decided that an anti-American autocracy was preferable to a pro-American autocracy, resulting in the Iranian theocracy we know and love today. Here's an exchange from Froggy Ruminations:

Anonymous Liberal: "THE FLASH POINT for the Middle East as it stands today" Actually goes back to the US installing the represive Shah in iran. The revolution in Iran and triumph of the extremists was a response to our supporting the despotic Shah."

Huntress: written by "Anonymous" - too cowardly to leave somekind of name -no doubt because he/she DOESNT have ANY understanding of Int'l relations and of WHY the revolution in Iran occurred.

Newsflash: It was NOT in response to the US SUPPORTING the Shah...It was in response to the Jimmy Carter ABANDONING the Shah.

Liberals have a bad habit of believing that negotiating with evil people - i.e. "Appeasement" - will bring about peace and love and prevent war.

Sadly the millions of jews that died in the Holocaust prove otherwise. Churchill understood that it was both foolish and dangerous to appease Hitler. Neville Chamberlain disagreed. Too bad Neville didn't suffer the same fate as European jews!

Jimmy Carter betrayed the Shah and in turn betrayed our country when he turned his back on the Shah.

In the 1970s Iraq was a client state of Russia...and very well armed. You will NOTE that RUSSIA not the US armed Iraq. Iran however was oil rich, possessed both a military and air force, and was pro western, along with Turkey. Both those allies were important in keeping a balance of power in the Middle East.

It would be that feckless foolish peacenik, President Jimmy Carter, who stupidly cleared the way for an extremist anti- american autocratic regime to take power.

While it's true that the Shah tried to modernize Iran too quickly, and led an oppressive regime, Iran was nonetheless of strategic importance to the US and to maintaining a balance of power in the M.E.

To add insult to injury...the crimes committed by the Ayatollah's regime would in time prove to outweigh anything the Shah had done. .

And if that isn't bad enough -liberals are still insisting that appeasement will work in Iran today -even as Iranian powerbrokers laugh in the face of feckless appeasement loving fools!

The Shah's modernizing influence was being felt in the M.E. but Jimmy decided that the Shah should cease having military tribunals AND release KNOWN terrorists! He threatened to cut off military aid until the Shah did as he asked. The Shah complied and that created the opening that Russia and Iranian dissidents afraid of modernization would use to assault the Shah's govt, while Carter stood by and DID NOTHING. He threw the Shah to the lions and with that left the US to deal with a legacy of problems. And for THIS he is awarded the NOBEL PEACE PRIZE? Or was it for sitting back fecklessly while Americans were held hostage in Iran for 444 days??

What you, Mr.Anonymous and your liberal ilk do not seem capable of grasping is that Carter's decision to standby and watch the Shah become forced from office led to creating a despotic regime more evil than the one it had replaced. Again, I ask, for this he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize!!??

Under the Shah, Iran did have human rights problems...but he was a benevolent despot and a friend to the US.

Now instead you have a regime that has inflicted worse human rights violations on its citizens..AND is an enemy of the US.

Khomeni said "we will export our revolution to the four corners of the world" and his son has said that as long as ISLAM exists..US Hostility exists..and therefore the struggle exists.

Im guessing feeble liberal minds won't understand the meaning..so let me spell it out for all of you:

IT'S EITHER OUR MISGUIDED FORM OF ISLAM THAT DEMOCRACY SUCCUMBS TO OR WE WILL DO BATTLE DIRECTLY WITH AMERICA AND ANY COUNTRY THAT SUPPORTS DEMOCRACY, FREEDOM, AND SECULARISM.

THESE people who are training terrorists to go to Iraq and to go to Europe, have been hellbent on killing Mr Anonymous, and all his/her appeasement loving secularist liberal friends, EVER since that Nobel Peace Prize Recipient, Pres Jimmy Carter, HELPED PUT THEM IN POWER!

Let me be clear...The flashpoint started when Peacenik Carter betrayed and turned his back on the Shah...refusing to help him stifle the dissidents whose fire Carter helped fuel and who came to power and now want to kill you..and unfortunately..EVERY OTHER AMERICAN THAT VALUES FREEDOM, DEMOCRACY INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO JEWS AND CHRISTIANS AND SECULARISTS!

In case you need even more help understanding WHO got us into the mess with Iraq and Iran...lets read what Jeane Kirkpatrick, a democrat at the time, has to say:

"The US cannot be indifferent to the subversion or others independance or to the development of new weapons by our adverseries....the last Democratic administration did not seem to notice much.......Carter's administration's motives were good, but their policies were inadequate, uninformed, and mistaken. They made things worse, not better. The US grew weaker..the Soviet Union grew stronger..Carter's unilateral restraint in developing and deploying weapons systems was accompanied by an unprecendant Soviet military and political buildup.....
....(they)developed missiles of stunning speed and accuracy and targeted cities of our friends in Europe"

Gotta love appeasement!! Democrats left us vulnerable then and once again wanted to do the same with Shitdam.
They forgot that WE HAD APPEASED HIM ...and yet he invaded Kuwait,where he ruthlessly murdered babies and whole families...killing 400 civilians in 7 months...and brutalizing thousands more.

Yet you, Anonymous, and all your liberal friends;those adorable peace loving Dumocrats; who claim to be the party of compassion and human rights,but refuse to rise to the defense of victims of brutal regimes, seem to view Saddam as some benevolent grandfather, yet believe Pres Bush is the evil one! Last time I looked..you didnt have your tongue cut off for voicing your dissent about his policies!

Maybe if Pres Clinton hadn't so busy "not having sex with that woman" and maybe if he hadn't been so busy having his balls licked by Monica -he might have had used them to be more aggressive with Al Queda when they first attacked the WTC and maybe over 2000 innocent americans - liberals and republicans - black and white - jews christians muslims aethiests and securalists, would not have died on Sept 11th 2001!

That is the price WE paid for Carter's appeasement in Iran and Clinton's inability to confront evil!

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 00:53|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 00:53|| Front Page Top

#3 In fact, Al Qaeda carried out 9/11 to drive a wedge between Uncle Sam and existing Arab governments

You're giving AQ way too much credit. They did it because they wanted to kill Americans in a spectacular fashion. There was no "foreign policy" involved here. Binny et al. are simpleton thugs (with Swiss bank accounts). That's all there is to it.

I recommend Peter Bergen's Holy War Inc, for an excellent background on Binny (written mostly before 9-11).

Posted by Rafael 2005-09-05 01:56|| 2005-09-05 01:56|| Front Page Top

#4 R: You're giving AQ way too much credit. They did it because they wanted to kill Americans in a spectacular fashion. There was no "foreign policy" involved here. Binny et al. are simpleton thugs (with Swiss bank accounts). That's all there is to it.

Simpletons would not have been able to kill 1,800 GI's. They're ill-equipped and cash-poor compared to the mean green machine, but they're no dummies Our boys encountered simpleton thugs in the Dominican Republic, Panama and Grenada - we crushed them like bugs. By contrast, al Qaeda has inflicted the highest number of military dead we've encountered, post-WWII, outside of Vietnam and Korea.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 02:21|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 02:21|| Front Page Top

#5 ZF -
In July 1876 the aboriginals killed 212 of Custer's command in one day. BTW, that was in a population of 38M, extrapolated that would be above 1,500 casualties in our population of 280M. Natives may be crafty and brave, but in the long run, their goals and means are indeed simple. Our casualties are a reflection of our unwillingness to practice war in the Mongol school of utter destruction which, whether you like it or not, has shown historically to cow the remaining local and regional populations into submission.

Posted by Glolurong Chailet2972 2005-09-05 04:38|| 2005-09-05 04:38|| Front Page Top

#6 GC: In July 1876 the aboriginals killed 212 of Custer's command in one day. BTW, that was in a population of 38M, extrapolated that would be above 1,500 casualties in our population of 280M. Natives may be crafty and brave, but in the long run, their goals and means are indeed simple.

The Sioux, like the other Indian tribes in the Americas, were a Stone Age people before Europeans showed up. Arabs have thousands of years of military and diplomatic traditions behind them. Zawahiri is a doctor. Bin Laden is an engineer and a scion of the Saudi equivalent of the Rockefellers, the Morgans and the Carnegies all rolled into one.

To us, pitting one enemy against another may be deep strategy, since we've never really had to it. But that's a classic tactic in much of the rest of the world. There is a reason that bin Laden keeps on referring to the Crusades, Andalusia and so on - these guys are steeped in the moves and counter-moves of the wars of jihad. The primary difference between then and now is that the forces of the Caliphate had a fine military instrument with which to work their will, whereas today's jihadists are working with scraps.

But even Muhammad started with nothing, and he and his successors built that into an empire that covered big chunks of Africa, Asia and Europe. What bin Laden is trying to do is get a country, much as Muhammad's success started with getting a city-state. For a short time, he had Afghanistan, with Mullah Muhammad as his figurehead. The problem with Afghanistan is that it was too remote and it was too poor. He needs a country with resources. And that is why he is fighting in Iraq. If he wins in Iraq, he's got a country that is producing 2m barrels of oil a year under his thumb. For al Qaeda, fighting in Iraq makes sense, not merely to kill Americans - that's merely a side benefit - but to obtain the resources to get to the next stage - waging jihad against the other Arab states, not by invasion, but via guerrilla movements.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 11:04|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 11:04|| Front Page Top

#7 The Sioux, like the other Indian tribes in the Americas, were a Stone Age people before Europeans showed up. Arabs have thousands of years of military and diplomatic traditions behind them.

*sigh*

The Sioux also had thousands of years of military and diplomatic tradition behind them. Just because they were fighting other redskins doesn't mean they never learned anything.

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-09-05 11:09|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-05 11:09|| Front Page Top

#8 RC: The Sioux also had thousands of years of military and diplomatic tradition behind them. Just because they were fighting other redskins doesn't mean they never learned anything.

These were oral traditions, which is why you can't trace Sioux history back very far. Arab military and diplomatic history goes back 5,000 years. This has nothing to do with bloodlines and everything to do with the availability of historical materials from which to draw strategic lessons.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 11:15|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 11:15|| Front Page Top

#9 I'd say a bigger difference was that the Iraqi's had oil and the Souix didn't.

Timing is everything.

Posted by Mrs. Davis 2005-09-05 11:19|| 2005-09-05 11:19|| Front Page Top

#10 RC: The Sioux also had thousands of years of military and diplomatic tradition behind them. Just because they were fighting other redskins doesn't mean they never learned anything.

The other aspect is that the Sioux were a Stone Age culture that may have numbered a few hundred thousand at their peak. The Arabs established an empire with a total population in the tens of millions. The two are simply not in the same league.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 11:20|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 11:20|| Front Page Top

#11 MD: I'd say a bigger difference was that the Iraqi's had oil and the Souix didn't. Timing is everything.

Oil was discovered in the Middle East in the 20th century. Prior to that, the main source of wealth for the region was agriculture and the control of trade routes between Europe and Asia.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 11:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 11:22|| Front Page Top

#12 This has nothing to do with bloodlines and everything to do with the availability of historical materials from which to draw strategic lessons.

Those strategic lessons sure as hell have helped the Arabs succeed in the modern world, haven't they? When was the last war won by an Arab army? Excepting an accident of nature and their own excess population, what exports come from the Arab world? Excepting fatwas and rehashed Nazi propaganda, what do they contribute to the world's knowledge supply?

So they've managed to kill lots of people. In the process they've achieved how many of their goals?

None. Bugger all.

That's not impressive. It's pathetic.

So is admiring their "prowess".

Posted by Robert Crawford">Robert Crawford 2005-09-05 11:36|| http://www.kloognome.com/]">[http://www.kloognome.com/] 2005-09-05 11:36|| Front Page Top

#13 RC: Those strategic lessons sure as hell have helped the Arabs succeed in the modern world, haven't they? When was the last war won by an Arab army? Excepting an accident of nature and their own excess population, what exports come from the Arab world? Excepting fatwas and rehashed Nazi propaganda, what do they contribute to the world's knowledge supply?

So they've managed to kill lots of people. In the process they've achieved how many of their goals?

None. Bugger all.

I believe we were talking about the relative achievements of the Sioux and the Arabs - and the availability of historical examples from which al Qaeda could draw strategic lessons. You suggested that the Sioux and the Arab record were equivalent. I explained why they weren't. The bottom line is that al Qaeda aren't the simpletons that some people think they are, and pitting one enemy against another isn't beyond the ken of al Qaeda operatives.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 12:04|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 12:04|| Front Page Top

#14 The Arab cultural tradition involves cleverly creating elaborate Gordonian(?) knots. Our cultural tradition involves slicing through them. And, we've got very sharp knives to pit against their cleverness.

Posted by trailing wife 2005-09-05 16:54|| 2005-09-05 16:54|| Front Page Top

#15 TW: The Arab cultural tradition involves cleverly creating elaborate Gordonian(?) knots. Our cultural tradition involves slicing through them. And, we've got very sharp knives to pit against their cleverness.

Actually, we've created elaborate Gordian knots for the simple reason that it's too much like work and too expensive to fight everyone who doesn't think exactly like us. This is why we have good relations with a lot of Arab and Muslim nations - despite the fact that we have very little in common. If we were going up against every single one of these nations, the Iraqi venture would be a lot more expensive. Al Qaeda's the one using its sword to slice through these Gordian knots to sunder the ties that bind Uncle Sam to its Arab allies. And as of today, it is unlikely that it will succeed.

Arab governments want to stay in power. Uncle Sam can provide them with the training and equipment to fight domestic insurrectionists. From the American standpoint, using local auxiliaries (Arab countries) to fight your enemy (al Qaeda) is an ancient Roman strategy. We are merely rehashing what the Romans used to good effect for centuries.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 17:22|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 17:22|| Front Page Top

#16 We are merely rehashing what the Romans used to good effect for centuries.

Thank God for the Romans and the Arab fighting nation, else there'd be nothing new under the sun.

Posted by Sitting Sneer 2005-09-05 19:58|| 2005-09-05 19:58|| Front Page Top

#17 SS: Thank God for the Romans and the Arab fighting nation, else there'd be nothing new under the sun.

Actually, the only thing new under the sun is the technology we use to achieve our ends. It's all been done before, in one way or another. That's why military guys spend so much time dissecting historical battles, and diplomats spend time reading about the interactions among the ancient states.

Posted by Zhang Fei 2005-09-05 20:15|| http://timurileng.blogspot.com]">[http://timurileng.blogspot.com] 2005-09-05 20:15|| Front Page Top

00:09 C-Low
00:00 Redneck Jim
23:55 Redneck Jim
23:48 C-Low
23:43 .com
23:40 Barbara Skolaut
23:31 Ulaick Wholuck8171
23:31 Rafael
23:24 Rafael
23:19 asedwich
23:15 Anonymoose
23:08 asedwich
23:01 Anonymoose
22:56 Paul Moloney
22:53 smn
22:51 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:47 mom
22:46 Sock Puppet OÂ´ Doom
22:41 Rafael
22:31 JosephMendiola
22:17 xbalanke
22:16 11A5S
22:16 Anonymoose
22:16 mom